Ortfried Schaeffter

Comment on the group evaluations of the 2nd module

24.3.1999

I have been very impressed by the quality, the complexity and the personal involvement that is to experience by reading your group evaluations. All my compliments to you and your very interesting assessment! Please do accept also, that I feel a little proud, that you - in very different ways - refer so sophisticated to the inputs Ruud, Julia and I had the pleasure to give - and especially that my seed fell on an "accepting soil" - if you understand what I mean.

But I also realized that there had been not enough time to discuss all the questions which may arise afterwards by rethinking all the heavy stuff.

From group 3 (Veerle Dupont) I got an email that motivates me to give some answers to open questions:

A) A never ending story: What does " CULTURE" really mean?

Obviously it is one of the topics we usually fail to clarify and which we have to discuss once again. From a constructivistic point of view you may give a definition that includes a lot of other more specific ones:

"Culture is a limited system of meaning, that is structuring awareness, recognition and values (quality) of that what is taken for granted as (social)"reality". Such a "system of meaning" creates a specific world (Nelson Goodman: "Ways of worldcreation") and can be understood only from an inside point of view - that means you have to be (or become) an active part of the system to be able to experience a certain universe of meaning. You need to "enculturate" if you want to "understand" the sense. ( Karl E. Weick: Sensemaking in Organizations Thousand Oaks/London 1995)

But there remains the question, in which cases there is a real chance for this enculturation (and if it is desirable at all).

In my lectures on "Experiencing strangeness" I referred to that, what I called "spheres of selfhood". I wanted to point out that besides "cultural differences" in the common way we use the term, there is a lot of other "sense creating boundaries" that are important for communication and social learning processes. On the other hand "cultural" differences create special boundaries and meaning perspectives in experiencing strangeness.

Concerning the "levels of identity" there were at least three levels to be found, which are very close to the common understanding of "culture":

a) level 6: Organization as a "culture of meaning" and implicit practice (organizational culture)

b) level 7: Sub-culture in the sense of milieu and lifestyle structures

c) level 8: Culture as macro forms as "civilizations"

Reflecting concrete critical incidents it might be worthwhile to ask, what level of identity is (political) dominant and works out like a STRUCTURAL FRAME OF REFERENCE to all the other "spheres of selfhood". (Here I am fond of the metaphor of "matrushka": the puppet in the puppet in the puppet)

At this point we find a further explanation for "culture" and now in a much wider understanding:

Cultural structures might be also understood as "configurations of vertical integration patterns" of the different levels of identity. E.T. Hall refers to this idea ("Beyond culture. New York 1977) with the distinction between "high context" and "low context" cultures, using conformity in a sense of loosely or more tightly coupled spheres.

Culture in this meaning describes the loosely or tightly configured (integrated)levels of selfhood as cultural patterns of how body-experience is connected with psychic and personal structure, group identity, organizational behaviour pattern etc. These patterns of structural integration might differ in between macro-cultures (civilizations) as European Culture and Asian culture but also between different vocations subcultures or even between organization cultures (like prison, hospital, school, banking office or builder firm).

If we dare to use the term "culture" we have to clarify what special meaning we have in mind. My lecture’s objective was not, to refer only to culture as "civilization" (In the sense of "The clash of civilizations") , but also to the cultural aspects of configuration between the other spheres of selfhood . But - to be honest - I nowadays very seldom use the term "culture" because it is a "joker": you can fill in every meaning you like and therefore it leads systematically to misunderstandings without a chance to communicate on it .

B) Group 3 is asking: Might "culture" be understood as an "UMBRELLA ", that is integrating different spheres of selfhood. With the aspect of integration I agree, but we need to clarify, what "integration" means. The "modes of experiencing strangeness" might used also as different integration modes . But the metaphor of an "umbrella" leads our interpretation only in one direction: the hierarchical higher level of selfhood. But there are much more "surfaces of encounter" between different spheres of selfhood: they may be on a higher, on the same or a deeper level. If you reflect on an empirical given "critical incident", there is a lot of possible "transactions" between these levels of selfhood - and the choice is on both sides! (If you are amused by complexity like me, you also may consider, that the two or three sides may be are integrated differently: one side perhaps very loosely coupled ("European"?) the other maybe very tight ("fundamental"?)

Looking from my standpoint, there is no general "transaction code" to which all human beings are able to refer "universally" - and which might be given in a sense of "natural" right or "nature of mankind". Here we reach the controversial discussion between universal and relativistic theories of culture.

In a constructivistic point of view, in encountering strangeness both sides have to construct a mutual (social) reality by communication on the contact surface BETWEEN different spheres of selfhood. We actually have to decide (mostly pragmatically by just doing) on which level or between which levels we get the chance to construct a mutual reality. Principally there are three possibilities:

(1) You may use a VERTICAL HIGHER context as an "umbrella" and get from it a "structural coupling". But be careful: this higher level might be repressive towards important sensemaking differences. The "European umbrella" f.e. should not mean unity (2nd mode ), but possibly the "wholeness of productive diversity"(3rd mode)

(2) You may use the HORIZONTAL contact level (contact on the same level): here we build mutual reality f.e. on a group level, subcultural level inspite of all strangeness on higher or deeper levels. For me it is f.e. the experience that I feel closer and have better communication with adult educators from Finland, Netherlands or Japan than with natural scientists at my Berlin University. (with these groups I even have no contact levels at all) Contact between subcultual groups of different "national-cultures" might be for example" a shared professional subculture" but certainly not a shared identity.

(3) Trying to construct a mutual reality with "aliens" you may do it like "E.T." did: Put your finger tips together and have a MUTAL REGRESSION to a DEEPER existential need: "I want to go home!" or "I need help - please feed me!" (first mode) That is the deepest form of creating a human reality: Empathy , Sympathy and Love. But don’t forget that this strategy of constructing a mutual reality is much easier by a mutual regression to hunger, hate and making the other to the victim of aggression. "Unhuman behavior is also "human".

It might be interesting to find out what STRATEGY OF CONSTRUCTING A MUTUAL REALITY is adequate for which form of encounter. In any case the reflection of a critical incident has to take in consideration what strategy had been (implicitly) chosen and what have been the results. The " UMBRELLA - STRATEGY" might be a solution of communication problems in the middle range of the levels, but we should discuss it more deeply on concrete "case studies".

As a result of these ideas I want to stress the following:

Encountering strangeness does not depend on that what you call "a shared identity" - but on the construction of a MUTUAL REALITY that emerges at the sensitive contact surfaces BETWEEN the spheres of selfhood. Intercultural Learning in this broader sense means to become aware of these contact surfaces, to be able to construct new contact surfaces to unknown strangeness and to be able to transit from one sphere of selfhood into a still unknown "universe of meaning" and to be able to switch back again to your homeland and be able to experience with new eyes. Intercultural competence means the changing between different contexts of meaning.

C) Veerle Dupond, you asked me about the term " CRITICAL INCIDENT".

As you correctly supposed the term is used both in Biographical Theory and in Intercultural Communication Training.

In Biographical Theory the term refers to critical situations in the life course. " CRITICAL" means not always dangerous or disagreeable incidents (like accidents or the death of a partner), but also a switch of the until then "normal" structure of a meaning system into a new structure. Critical situations in life span are "passages of status" like the switching from school life to vocational training, from occupation to unemployment etc. But also the changing from a "couple" to a "family" by the coming of a baby - or the change of a person or family to an other place of living might be such a critical situation. Most important is, that there are no critical situations in an objective sense, but only in the way to experience a situation as structural new in a given lifecourse. It is a hermeneutic term, that need s interpretation from inside.

In German speaking literature there are surveys of Sigrun Fillips: "Kritische Lebensereignisse". If you are interested I may have a look for publications in English.

In theory and practice of Intercultural Communication Training the term "critical incident" is used as an important category in the publications of Richard Brislin:

Richard Brislin & Tomoko Yoshida: Intercultural Communication Training: An Introduction . Thousand Oaks etc. (Sage Publ.) 1994

ISBN 0-8039-5074-8 ISBN 0-8039-5075-6 (pbk.)

(Brislin’s E-Mail: brislinr@busadm.cba.hawai.edu)

Brislin, R.W. et. al. Coceptualization of intercultural behavior and training. In: D. Landis&R.W. Brislin (Eds.): Handbook of intercultural training. Vol. I (1-35). New Yokr (Pergamon) 1983

German language:

Thomas, A. (Hrsg,): Kulturvergleichende Psychologie. Eine Einführung. Goettingen etc. (Hogrefe) 1993S.415 (Culture-Assimilator-Training)